Donald Trump's Conspiracy Indictment, It's Not That Complicated; Really.
David Tiffany, JD, LL.M
Watching legal authorities on the various network news channels and programs it would be easy to believe the new Indictment brought against Donald Trump is extremely complicated and that there are several plausible legal defenses. I don't think that is the case.
The forty five page talking indictment covers a lot of factual ground. To put this novelle in perspective it is important to start with the end of the criminal trial. After all the facts are presented and the lawyers have brought their motions and made their final arguments the jury will be instructed on the law. Basically, they will be told what the template is for them to decide the case. Let's start with some of those instructions. I will edit some of the probable relevant pattern jury instructions for salient points to try and simplify the process.
Three of the Four counts are Conspiracy charges and those are the charges I will be addressing. You don't need to commit a crime to be guilty of Conspiracy, you only need to agree with someone else to try and commit a crime.
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States:
"It's a Federal crime for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to defraud the United States or any of its agencies.
To "defraud" the United States means to cheat the Government out of property or money or to interfere with any of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft, or trickery.
A "conspiracy" is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. In other words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes. Every member of the conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other member.
The Government does not have to prove that all the people named in the indictment were members of the plan, or that those who were members made any kind of formal agreement. The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the unlawful plan itself, so the Government does not have to prove that the conspirators succeeded in carrying out the plan.
The Government does not have to prove that the members planned together all the details of the plan or the "overt acts" that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
[The elements that each needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]:
*two or more people in some way agreed to try to accomplish a shared unlawful plan
*the Defendant had knowledge of the plan and willfully joined in it;
*at least one conspirator knowingly engaged in at least one overt act:
*the overt act was committed close in time to the agreement
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
